The judgment established the principle that educational qualifications are crucial for promotion and that a comprehensive circular supersedes earlier circulars.

Hemant Gupta, CJ.

1. The order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3521 of 1998 (Guneshwar Krishan Manuja v. M.P. Electricity Board and another) is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. Vide order impugned in the present appeal, the learned Single Judge has allowed the pay scale of the post of Additional Chief Engineer to the writ petitioner, who was a Diploma Holder.

2. The facts are not in dispute; the writ petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer in the year 1963 on the basis of educational qualification of Diploma. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer and then to the post of Superintending Engineer.

3. Certain circulars were issued granting higher pay scale of the post of Additional Chief Engineer, but, all such circulars were superseded when a circular was issued on 19.07.1990. The relevant extract from the circular dated 19.07.1990 (Annexure A/1) reads as under:-

"In supersession of the existing orders, except order No.01-05/I/95 dated 26.5.1990, the Board is pleased to grant the benefit of two options for higher pay scales to the class I & II officers on completion of 9/18/25 years of service, subject to the following conditions:-

Ist option:

*** *** ***

IInd option:

*** *** ***

(xxv) The option for higher scale is admissible only upto the post of Superintending Engineer and equivalent rank. The SEs who are Diploma Holders are not eligible to the benefit of higher scale as the Promotion of Diploma Holders are limited to the post of SEs. Similarly, the officers in equivalent rank of SE in other wings who are not having required education/professional qualification, will not be eligible to the benefit of higher pay scale. In the case of officers whose promotion to higher post is held up for want of minimum qualifications, such officers shall not be eligible to opt for higher pay scale."

4. Earlier, another circular was issued on 22.03.1986 that the Superintending Engineers, who are Diploma Holders are not eligible to the benefit of higher pay scale as promotion of Diploma Holders is limited to the post of Superintending Engineer. The relevant clause 2(iv) of the circular dated 22.03.1986, reads as under:-

"2. The Board is now pleased to prescribe the following terms and conditions for grant of higher pay scale:

(i) *** *** ***

(ii) *** *** ***

(iii) *** *** ***

(iv) The Superintending Engineers who are Diploma Holders are not eligible to the benefit of higher scale as the promotion of Diploma holders are limited to the post of Superintending Engineer."

5. On the basis of such circulars, it is contended by the appellants that the writ petitioner, who is a Diploma Holder cannot get the pay scale of Additional Chief Engineer, as such post is only meant to be held by Degree Holders. In support of the said contention that there can be classification on the basis of educational qualification, the learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the Supreme Court order reported as 2004 (1) SCC 347 (Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and others) wherein it is held that the employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualifications can be treated differently. The relevant extract from the said decision are reproduced as under:-

"14. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same, irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently.

*** *** ***

30. The respondents are merely graduates in Science. They do not have